Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Tanveer Ahmad Lone vs Ashfaq Ahmad Mir on 2 September, 2025
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
Serial No. 51
SUPPLEMENTARY CAUSE LIST-II
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
AA 3/2025
Tanveer Ahmad Lone. ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Mir Umar, Advocate.
Vs.
Ashfaq Ahmad Mir. ...Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE.
ORDER
02.09.2025
01. The petitioner and the respondent for entering into a partnership business constituted a firm in the name and style of M/s Hot Spot Restaurant for carrying restaurant business in Kupwara for which a notary attested and registered partnership deed dated 01.02.2022 came to be executed bearing an arbitration clause.The partnership is a partnership at will.
02. In terms of clause 12 of the partnership deed, the petitioner-Tanveer Ahmad Lone was constituted to be the managing partner of the firm. The place of business of the firm was housed in a building belonging to one Haji Ghulam Ahmad Mir, who incidentally is father of the respondent, on rent basis with annual rent of Rs.2,50,000/-. In addition, the petitioner as being the managing partner was entitled to honorarium of Rs. 10,000/-.
03. A dispute having arisen between the two partners i.e. petitioner as well as the respondent, led the petitioner to file a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction before the court of Sub Judge, Kupwara wherein by virtue of an order dated15.05.2024, an application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 came to be allowedbearing the following directions:
"15. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and discussion rendered supra, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant is fully entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for. Hence the instant application for interim relief is accepted. The non-applicant is temporarily restrained from expelling the applicant from the partnership business. The non-applicant is also directed to allow the applicant to carry on the business as a partner. The non- applicant is further restrained from causing any sort of interference with the suit establishment where the restaurant is running till the outcome of the main suit. The observations made hereinabove are limited for the purpose of the instant application and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case. Besides this, the instant order shall not be deemed as restriction for the parties to settle their dispute amicably any time or legally take the matter before any other forum for resolution. The application at hand is disposed of accordingly and shall form part of the main suit."
04. Against said order dated 15.05.2024, the respondent preferred a civil miscellaneous appeal on file No. 09/Appeal before the court of learned Principal District Judge, Kupwara who by virtue of an order dated 06.07.2024by taking cognizance of the arbitration clause in the contract obtaining between the petitioner and the respondent set aside the order dated 15.05.2024 by directing the parties to maintain status quotill the application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed in the matter was to be disposed of.
05. The long and short of the situation came to be that the petitioner has come to be led to invoke section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in which regard a petition is said to be pending before this Court.
06. Finding his interest in the firm and its business being exposed to prejudice by his purported ouster from participation in the business, the petitioner came forward with institution of the present petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for seeking relief/s to the following effect:
"1. Appoint a receiver to take charge of the partnership business under the name and style of M/s Hot Spot Restaurant with powers to manage daily affairs, maintain accounts and report to this Hon'ble Court reportedly.
2. Direct the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs. 28,00,000/- (Twenty Eight Lakh) being the joint capital investment of both parties, before this Hon'ble Court.
3. Restrain the respondent from dissolving, winding up or in any manner alienating, transferring or encumbering any movable or immovable assets of the partnership business.
4. Direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the business operations as a partner, and to refrain from obstructing or expelling the petitioner from the partnership firm till conclusion of arbitral proceedings.
5. Pass any other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fair and necessary in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
6. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."
07. This Court, in terms of an order dated 27.05.2025, directed issuance of notice to the respondent to be carried out in terms of service through process serving agency of District Court, Kupwara.
08. Office Noting dated 31.05.2025 reflects that notice issued to the respondent has not been received back served or unserved, meaning thereby there is an attempt on part of the respondent to avoid the service or outsmart the service of the process upon him in order to protract the present matter which otherwise is asking for urgent and immediate relief.
09. Issue fresh summons to the respondent to be served through Tamilat section of Principal District Judge, Kupwara.
10. Petitioner to procure dasti summons addressed to the respondent from the Registrar Judicial, Srinagar within a period of seven days from the date of passing of this order and deliver the summons within next five days to the Principal District Judge, Kupwara who shall then depute a Special Process Server for effecting service of the summons unto the respondent and return the process by the next date of hearing positively failing which this Court shall be seeking accountability from none else then the Principal District Judge, Kupwara as to why the process sent from this Court for service through Tamilat section of District Court, Kupwara failed to come back with the service status report.
11. List again on 30.09.2025.
12. In the meantime, the respondent is restrained from denying the participation of the petitioner in the routine running of the restaurant business of M/S Hotspot Restaurant.
13. This order is, however, subject to objections from the other side.
(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE SRINAGAR:
02.09.2025 "HAMID"